DiscoLives4ever wrote:This isn't about what Hayward is worth necessarily, it's about what the alternatives are.
Suppose the Jazz match a max contract, what have they really lost? Maybe a few million a year in cap space over the next few years? As has been pointed out the team isn't getting any big name free agents, even if they had space. Anybody they do get is likely going to be an overpay as well just to get them to come to a young Utah team. They have plenty of space already, so there isn't really any risk of losing their current young talent when it comes time to extend them.
On the flip side, the Jazz have quite a bit to lose from letting him walk or even getting the crumbs from a sign and trade. Aside from his current production, he still clearly has some sort of potential to improve under a new coach as indicated by the amount of interest he's received already. The Jazz could let him go for nothing and hope that some mythical game changer comes along in the handful of years he actually hinders the the financial flexibility of the team, or they could overpay for him but have the chance (however slim) that he becomes a solid 2nd option.
There's not a lot of reward to signing Hayward to a large contract, but there is even less risk.
I think the free agent issue is overestimated. Just because we aren't going to get Lebron James after a season of tanking doesn't mean cap space becomes useless to the Jazz. When we've been in position to become a winner in free agency, we have. Stockton and Malone covered things for decades. We missed on Jermaine Oneal and Corey Magette because we were sure to suck. Once we got things back together, we picked up Boozer and Okur. That kept us up for a while. We shifted to Al Jefferson for a few years, and then decided to blow it up for the first time ever. Of course this period post tank isn't going to attract any help in free agency, not until we show we are a promising up and coming team again. That is the time the Jazz can hope to get some good free agents. We're not going to attract a super star, but at that point we can add guys coming off of rookie deals like Boozer and Okur, as long as we are a good basketball team where they can play a big role in making us better and we can pay them top dollar. I don't know about you, but I want to become a promising young team sometime in the next five years, and I don't want a Hayward anchor getting in the way when that happens.
Besides that, cap space is an asset. We've absorbed expiring contracts and gotten picks which have been vital to our rebuild. The better, but smaller, possibility is picking up a star in a trade where cap space and picks (acquired using cap space) are always key. I'll hope for that homerun instead of watching max Hayward lead us to 11th in the west for a few years.
I think you're also underestimating the risk. We can't set a precedent of paying rookies near max money for being average. If we load up on near max deals for all of these average youngsters we have, we'll end up on the 10-12th in the west treadmill, not even competing for the playoffs. Yes, we can afford to pay them. But why would we pay them that much for being handcuffed into sub 500 basketball? I'll let max Hayward pass, and keep trying on young talent, trades, and free agency until there's something worth the money that we can pick up. This is critical to becoming an up and coming team that becomes desirable to free agents (from your own team and others) and becoming a winning ball club. Exum could give us that opportunity. Burks might impress us this year. Kanter could explode. If none of that happens, I'm happy to let them go, too. This is about building a winning ball club eventually. It's not about getting locked into a losing ball club because we can afford to pay for it.
In '03-'04, Jerry Sloan coached the ESPN predicted "worst team of all time" to 42-40.
